Friends of the Franciscans of the Immaculate must ask the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican to delete or revoke the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 entry from the Denzinger Enchridion since it's reference was an American magazine and not the Acta Apostolica Sedis.It also has an irrational, factual error. Once this error is corrected the Franciscans of the Immaculate can accept Vatican Council II, rationally, along with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
The letter of the Holy Office to Archbishop Cushing was not an official Act of the Apostolic See, for it never appeared in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis itself. Every author who has written ex professo on the subject has commented upon this mysterious fact. In consequence, the Jesuit Karl Rahner later had to invent a special category in order to provide an excuse for inserting the letter in Denzinger’s Enchiridion . The controversial missive was not put in Denzinger until 1963, the year Rahner retired as editor. We can logically assume that in 1962 (while preparing the 1963 edition) his coup de grace was to insert the unqualified document to stand where it ought not (“he that readeth, let him understand”), and then bow out without taking responsibility. And, are you aware what was (and still is) the “source” Denzinger’s compilation gives for the Holy Office letter? The American Ecclesiastical Review ! These revealing facts are essential to an unbiased consideration of the case.
What may appear of minor significance to some is the fact that no official of the Church tribunal signed the decree ”excommunicating” Father Feeney. Perhaps the official who ought to have signed it was embarrassed to be the one to put his name on the only decree of excommunication to come from Rome for half a century — and that, a decree “excommunicating” a priest who simply taught the defined dogma that there is no salvation for anyone who refuses to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” Nor was the decree stamped with the seal of the Holy Office. Very strange indeed!
Then you state that Cardinal Ottaviani signed the 1949 letter of the Holy Office to Archbishop Cushing. Cardinal Ottaviani signed nothing. The letter was signed by Cardinal Marchetti-Selvaggiani, Ottaviani’s secretary. No doubt the Prefect of the Holy Office knew about it. Even so, how can you be so enthusiastic for a man who in spite of his objections to the Protestant tendencies of the Novus Ordo, went against his conscience and accepted it?
I do not know, Father Williamson, how misinformed the Holy See was about the Father Feeney case. But I do know that the Holy See is run by scholarly men who do know theology. That is why their action against Father Feeney, whoever was responsible for that action, constitutes a betrayal of trust. When these unfortunate events unfolded, Father Feeney was heartbroken. He did expect the Pope to come to his defense. It was he who had accused Archbishop Cushing of heresy, and he truly did not expect that the tables would be turned on himself, whoever did turn them. Actually, no one has been able to prove that Pope Pius had anything to do with the Holy Office letter, or the excommunication.
The Letter of the Holy Office used a false premise and this premise is used by the liberals in the Vatican Curia in the interpretation of Vatican Council II,the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the other magisterial documents.
The irrational premise says every one on earth in the present times does not need the baptism of water for salvation, since there are known exceptions.It is implied that there are non Catholics who have died with the baptism of desire and in invincible ignorance and they are de facto known.They have died without the baptism of water it is inferred.It is assumed wrongly that we know who they are in the present times and we can name them. So the conclusion is that every one does not need the baptism of water for salvation in 2014.An irrational premise produces a non traditional conclusion. It is this conclusion that the Franciscan Friars have to accept to be allowed to offer the Traditional Latin Mass and teach at their seminary.They have to imply that NA 2, UR 3, LG 16,LG 8 etc are explicit exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.So they must accept Vatican Council II as break with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Syllabus of Errors and the Catechism of Pope Pius X.They have to assume that the Council of Trent and the Catechism of Pope Pius X referred to a visible and not invisible for us baptism of desire.
It is this irrational premise which Fr.Fidenzio Volpi the Apostolic Commissioner of the Franciscans of the Immaculate uses in the interpretation of Vatican Council II and other magisterial documents.This should be taken note of by his religious congregation the Franciscan Capuchins. They too are interpreting Vatican Council II with this irrational premise and so are rejecting traditional teachings of the Church.
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith must be asked to clarify that the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 has no basis as a magisterial document and also that it contains an objective error. It assumes there are non Catholics in Heaven saved without the baptism of water .It assumes that these cases are not implicit but explicit. Then it concludes that these cases are explicit exceptions the dogma on salvation. It is assumed that these cases are defacto exceptions for all needing the baptism of water for salvation.Hypothetical cases are objective exceptions!?
-Lionel Andrades
Fr.Fidenzio Volpi OFM cap.,is forcing the Franciscans of the Immaculate to accept an irrational premise with Vatican Council II : 'Socrates is a cat' http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/08/frfidenzio-volpi-ofm-capis-forcing.html#links
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment